Wednesday, November 22, 2006

The super-duper doubleplus top secret weapon

Here it is. Bishop Schofield of San Joaquin is being OUTED!!!! When shall we hear the famous words, "I have here A LIST..."

I have to admit, this "outing" business among homosexuals has always baffled me. I can't think of any other supposed victim group who seeks revenge on its enemies by flaunting its own repulsiveness. Did Jews in Nazi Germany denounce other Jews for...being Jews? Did Christians in Communist Russia go to the authorities and say, "You know that Ivan Boronsky two blocks away? Well, he's just a dirty Christian, like me!" The AACP can be pretty scathing about blacks who refuse to stay on the plantation, but even THEY don't resort to saying, "Oh, that Thomas Sowell! Who can believe anything he says? He's just lousy BLACK MAN!"

It's a sign of the desperate viciousness among the leftists in ECUSA that they're trying this gambit. Frankly, I don't think it's going to work. Americans really do tend to be more annoyingly broadminded than rigid ideologues give them credit for, and this probably isn't really news, anyway. (Well, it was to me, but then, I'm not a clerical groupie, so I don't follow these things all that closely.) One thing I've noticed about Episcopalians - maybe it's Americans in general - a thing is just really not considered that bad unless it involves children or money (especially money). And so unless they can discover some teenage boyfriend on the payroll, I don't think anyone is going to do much but shake their head and go on just as before.

UPDATE: According to Rob Eaton, a priest in Bishop Schofield's diocese, the whole thing is a lie that started on the HoB/D listserve. I think the Bishop might have a good legal case for libel and defamation.

The interesting thing to me is that the Left is recklessly using these scorched-earth tactics. "Hardball" would be too mild a term. These are political "dirty tricks", "October Surprise" tactics, and nobody on that side seems even faintly embarrassed about it. I really don't know what the limits are for these people; what would make them blanch? Planting evidence? Watergate-style burglary? Who knows anymore?

9 Comments:

Blogger Ellie M said...

Now this is a real puzzler. Even if this bit of gossip is true (which is questionable considering the source) I just don't get why it's supposed to be scandalous. Are reasserters expected to scream "Oohhh, a scary homosexual!!!" and run Schofield out of town, or tar & feather him, or something? When have reasserters EVER had a problem with celibate homosexuals? The answer is, of course, never. (The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church, which is arguably stricter.)

So I guess the "scandal" must be for reappraisers, who would consider Schofield a Traitor To The Cause. And so they will... do what, again? Call him names? Expel him from a church he wants out of anyway? Sic Rosie O'Donnell on him??

9:11 am  
Blogger Kasia said...

It is, I believe, the latter. Schofield is "A Traitor To The Cause." Notice how whats-her-face (the annoying Episcopal blogger) compared it to blacks who supposedly undercut the civil rights movement? (She says they had a name for such people...I have no idea what that name was.)

I remember when I was in my undergrad I took a Philosophy of Sex & Sexual Orientation course. It was actually very interesting, although due to its nature the demographics were a bit...skewed. (I think there were two heteros in the class.)

One topic of discussion was the question, "Do prominent people who are generally presumed to be gay but who are not 'out' publicly have an obligation to 'come out'?" Examples like Rosie O'Donnell (who was then 'in the closet') and Richard Simmons were put up for debate.

What amazed me was how few of the people in the class thought, as I did, that it was perfectly acceptable for a famous person who was also gay to keep his or her sexuality to him-or-her-self. After all, isn't one's sexuality PRIVATE?

IMHO, 'outing' a celibate homosexual like Schofield is so that 'progressives' like the blogger to whom Dr. Mabuse linked can have a voyeuristic thrill. It's also a power play to say "Nyah, nyah - you can try to keep it a secret, but WE know. Now, why don't you just be TRUE to yourself and start up with some nice man?"

But that's just my opinion. :-)

10:12 am  
Blogger Allen Lewis said...

Kasia,
I believe the name may have been - Uncle Tom

6:03 pm  
Blogger Kasia said...

Ah - you're probably right. By now that term has been so thoroughly misused (to describe any black person who says anything critical to any other black person, in my experience), that I've just pushed it out of my consciousness.

Speaking of that, my sister worked with a woman who told another woman that she was "a real Uncle Ben" (sic) for liking Alanis Morissette. I had no idea Alanis was down with rice, or that liking her was somehow a betrayal of the African-American people.

6:35 pm  
Blogger Ellie M said...

You might want to check this out, folks:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1514/

7:45 pm  
Blogger Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

The reason they think this is okay, is because they view it as hypocritical (obviously, it is not, as ellie m so aptly points out in her first comment). Hypocrisy is the only sin liberals recognize.

And this kind of revelation (which appears to be no kind of revelation at all, if not flat out wrong) gives liberals the opportunity to do some armchair pop psych analysis. Which they love. It's always easier to justify one's own position if one thinks the other side has "issues."

11:46 pm  
Blogger Ellie M said...

N, B & S: actually, for liberals the ultimate sin is celibacy. It's the polar opposite of their most exalted principle, self-gratification.

9:20 am  
Blogger Allen Lewis said...

I think ellie m has made a good point. For the gay lobby, not to act on your "sexuality" is a grave disservice to the gay community.

Celibacy calls into question the entire program of basing ones identity on ones sexual activity.

Here's a question for all to think about. How many women find themselves attracted to another woman because of her beauty, attitude, achievrments, etc. Does this make you a lesbian?

Now, how many men out there find themselves at times attracted to other members of their own gender because of looks, charm, achievement. Does this make them homosexuals, bisexuals, confused?

The fact is that it is perfectly normal and common to be attracted to someone of ones own gender from time to time. The real question is - do we act on that attraction or not? Are we now going to claim that feelings of attraction are the same as feelings of "love?" I doubt it.

Quite frankly the whole LGBT identity crisis is about behavior. That is why additional initials get tacked onto LGBT all the time. So that now we have LBGTQ or LBFTI, etc., etc.

I like to eat red meat. Why don't I self identify as a Carnivore? Probably because there is no political, economic or social advantage to be gained by doing so.

Are we now going to be forced to live in a world where our identities are determined by our behavior? In that case there would be plenty of Hypocrites out there since none of us really live out what we say we believe 100% of the time.

12:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://cums.sblog.cz
Original Vaginal Cum shot videos.

10:59 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home